M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

25 the same time in the presence of each other and the testator. The need and necessity for stringent requirements of clause (c) to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, has been elicited and explained in several decisions. In H.VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B.N.THIMMAJAMMA & ORS., reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, dilating on the statutory and mandatory requisites

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 and Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. “If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be and attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A of the incremental peak credit of the respective years, in the subject assessment years, taken from all the accounts to be perfectly in order. There can be a reasonable assumption that the incremental credit would be the income of the assessee, the remittances being found in favour of the assessee and the disbursal

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

Section 68 of Evidence Act was not necessitated. The trial court answered issue no.6 partly in affirmative and partly in negative. 30. Insofar as issue no.3, trial Court held that by virtue of gift deed, defendants no.2 and 3 had become absolute owners of ‘B’ schedule property. Therefore, plaintiffs did not have share in the same. Trial court proceeded

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

Section 68(2) of VDIS, 1997 had been issued to the Assessee is recorded in the order dt. 10.03.2000 passed by the CIT(Appeals) and also in the subsequent order passed by ITAT on 17.08.2004.Therefore, the issuance of the said certificate to the Assessee cannot be doubted. 9 25

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 of the Act. 7. The assessee filed I.T.A.No.295/CIT(A)/GNT/ 2006-07 to the CIT (Appeals). Before the appellate authority, the assessee also filed copies of the donor’s financial statements and contended that the donor is a resident of Boston in USA, that he is an immigrant to USA and is working there

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

25, the document may be registered. (2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times. (3) The registering officer shall thereupon— (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

25 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that an agreement without consideration is void '-t"lt""] the agreement is in i writing and registered or contains a promisP to compensate for .l something done or it is a promise to pay a debt barred bv limitation law' I Moreover, the first proviso to section 92 in The Indian

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

25 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that an agreement without consideration is void '-t"lt""] the agreement is in i writing and registered or contains a promisP to compensate for .l something done or it is a promise to pay a debt barred bv limitation law' I Moreover, the first proviso to section 92 in The Indian

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

25 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that an agreement without consideration is void '-t"lt""] the agreement is in i writing and registered or contains a promisP to compensate for .l something done or it is a promise to pay a debt barred bv limitation law' I Moreover, the first proviso to section 92 in The Indian

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 35 of 137 (b) ―foreign currency‖ and ―Indian currency‖ have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 35 of 137 (b) ―foreign currency‖ and ―Indian currency‖ have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

25 to 27 and Section VI is from Chapters 28 to 38. 62. Chapter I in Section I, which relates to live animals, covers all live animals except (a) fish and crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, (b) cultures of micro-organisms and other products, and (c) animals of Heading 9508. Chapter 2 relates to meat and edible